The Biden - Harris Era.

[RedFromMI]

The plan that would sunset Social Security and Medicare!

The perfect plan to essentially eliminate most government functions - a John Birch Society fever dream.

(Forces ALL federal programs to sunset every five years.) And with a filibuster, you have the prescription to break the federal government down to nothing in no time.

So much nonsense in that plan that Mitch McConnell won't touch it with a ten foot pole.

We *like* Mitch now?

Mitch is far more a DC establishment guy than Rick, and above all, Mitch doesn’t think putting out plans in advance of the shellacking Democrats are about to get is smart politics. I disagree with him.

In any event, a fan said no Republicans had plans. I showed him one.

It is not a matter of liking him - I don't care for his politics of both obstructionism and the bending of logic to avoid votes (like Garland) while rushing ACB through. If he thinks it is a bad idea, how do you possibly sell it? The D attack lines write themselves, and when the voters see that social security is in real danger it will put a real damper on R candidates.

So just run on an obviously not ready for prime time plan...and hope no one notices.

[MDlaxfan76]

I see campaign slogans but no actual plan.

That may be a way to win elections, but certainly isn't responsible government...of course, the latter may well not be the objective for some.

[cradleandshoot]

The plan that would sunset Social Security and Medicare!

The perfect plan to essentially eliminate most government functions - a John Birch Society fever dream.

(Forces ALL federal programs to sunset every five years.) And with a filibuster, you have the prescription to break the federal government down to nothing in no time.

So much nonsense in that plan that Mitch McConnell won't touch it with a ten foot pole.

We *like* Mitch now?

Mitch is far more a DC establishment guy than Rick, and above all, Mitch doesn’t think putting out plans in advance of the shellacking Democrats are about to get is smart politics. I disagree with him.

In any event, a fan said no Republicans had plans. I showed him one.

It is not a matter of liking him - I don't care for his politics of both obstructionism and the bending of logic to avoid votes (like Garland) while rushing ACB through. If he thinks it is a bad idea, how do you possibly sell it? The D attack lines write themselves, and when the voters see that social security is in real danger it will put a real damper on R candidates.

So just run on an obviously not ready for prime time plan...and hope no one notices.

For crying out loud, there have been voices screaming for years that SS was in deep doo financially. For all those years the voices from the other side said nonsense. So now all of a sudden comes the acknowledgement that SS really has been in " deep doo doo" can you imagine that? Some one finally did the math...

[cradleandshoot]

I see campaign slogans but no actual plan.

That may be a way to win elections, but certainly isn't responsible government...of course, the latter may well not be the objective for some.

" responsible government" now there is an oxymoron for you. Sort of like jumbo shrimp...
We are 30 trillion in debt. Responsible government is a ship that sailed decades ago.

[MDlaxfan76]

I see campaign slogans but no actual plan.

That may be a way to win elections, but certainly isn't responsible government...of course, the latter may well not be the objective for some.

" responsible government" now there is an oxymoron for you. Sort of like jumbo shrimp...
We are 30 trillion in debt. Responsible government is a ship that sailed decades ago.

mmm, by that I mean making well considered policy choices, not merely campaign slogans. That includes the relative usage of debt capacity or not. Debt in and of itself is not irresponsible, as long as the underlying assets are growing in the long term faster than the relative amount of debt.

Of course, that doesn't mean that some spending relative to taxation isn't irresponsible. It can be.

Being a fiscal conservative means to have a bias to being careful to not excessively spend more than the rate of growth in underlying assets, except in extreme situations, and to generally spend less than the rate of such growth when times are good. Conserve dry powder for those extreme times. They will happen.

[Peter Brown]

I see campaign slogans but no actual plan.

That may be a way to win elections, but certainly isn't responsible government...of course, the latter may well not be the objective for some.

" responsible government" now there is an oxymoron for you. Sort of like jumbo shrimp...
We are 30 trillion in debt. Responsible government is a ship that sailed decades ago.

MD didn’t drill down past the headline points because ‘Republican bad’…. If he had, he’d have found an actual fiscal conservative who is looking to pay down debt, reform spending and revenue, and not incur further debt.



Enact term limits for the Washington ruling class – 12-year limits for Congress and government bureaucrats. (Exceptions for national security reasons only.)

Begin paying down debt. Debt = politicians stealing from our future and stealing from all of us right now with inflation.

Forbid politicians from becoming lobbyists and “cashing-in” on their public service.

Eliminate federal programs that can be done locally. Any government function that can be handled locally should be.

Move most Government agencies out of Washington and into the real world.

Sell off all non-essential government assets, buildings, and land, and use the proceeds to pay down our national debt.

All federal legislation sunsets in 5 years. If a law is worth keeping, Congress can pass it again.

All government bids and contracts should be publicly available on the internet.

If government fails to comply with the law, citizens must have the right to sue to force them to comply.

No government employee can make more than 5 times the national median individual income.

We will bar the federal government from using your tax dollars for advertising campaigns.

We will drastically simplify the tax code, and eliminate the advantages of those who can afford tax lawyers and lobbyists.

We will immediately cut the IRS funding and workforce by 50%.

We will allow Veterans to choose how they access health care, either through the VA or private providers, whichever they prefer.

Force Congress to issue a report every year telling the public what they plan to do when Social Security and Medicare go bankrupt.

Other than essential core functions, government should not be doing anything that the private sector can do better and cheaper.

We will apply the “Do It Better” Test: If American businesses can serve the American people better and cheaper than government, the work goes to them.

No government assistance unless you are disabled or aggressively seeking work. If you can work, but refuse to work, you cannot live off of the hard work and sweat of your fellow Americans.

We will require “truth in governing.” If government passes a law that does not achieve what it promised, the program will be shut down.

We will balance the federal budget. It can be done. States do it all the time.

If Congress does not pass a budget, the members of Congress do not get paid. Full stop.

Other than disaster relief, the federal government must stop spending money on non-essential state and local projects until the budget is balanced.

Eliminate truly non-essential government employee positions, because they are non-essential.

Implement the line-item veto. It works in state capitols. It will work in Washington

Expedite all federal permit applications to be granted or denied within 30 days.

All Americans should pay some income tax to have skin in the game, even if a small amount. Currently over half of Americans pay no income tax.

Prohibit debt ceiling increases absent a declaration of war.



Now comes MD’s ‘but this is outrageous!’…as predictable as a sunrise.

Every time they claim there are no fiscal conservatives with a plan, then you give it to them, suddenly they tell you your plans are too harsh… Total clowns.

[cradleandshoot]

I see campaign slogans but no actual plan.

That may be a way to win elections, but certainly isn't responsible government...of course, the latter may well not be the objective for some.

" responsible government" now there is an oxymoron for you. Sort of like jumbo shrimp...
We are 30 trillion in debt. Responsible government is a ship that sailed decades ago.

mmm, by that I mean making well considered policy choices, not merely campaign slogans. That includes the relative usage of debt capacity or not. Debt in and of itself is not irresponsible, as long as the underlying assets are growing in the long term faster than the relative amount of debt.

Of course, that doesn't mean that some spending relative to taxation isn't irresponsible. It can be.

Being a fiscal conservative means to have a bias to being careful to not excessively spend more than the rate of growth in underlying assets, except in extreme situations, and to generally spend less than the rate of such growth when times are good. Conserve dry powder for those extreme times. They will happen.

So the fact inflation is creeping ever forward makes all that spending even more irresponsible? What will it cost just to pay interest on our debt at 30 trillion if inflation increases 1%? I'm guessing you already know the answer. All the responsible government talk means nothing unless the government stops spending

[MDlaxfan76]

Re Scott, platitudes and slogans not an actual plan...red meat, no legislation.

But if you actually look at it, as if a "plan" to be taken seriously, he's proposing to raise taxes on all working class Americans and sunset Medicare and Social Security. Ok...that's certainly a "policy" but not actually a plan as to how to make that actually functional. Meanwhile build the wall and name it after Trump...

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politi ... 35620.html

[MDlaxfan76]

I see campaign slogans but no actual plan.

That may be a way to win elections, but certainly isn't responsible government...of course, the latter may well not be the objective for some.

" responsible government" now there is an oxymoron for you. Sort of like jumbo shrimp...
We are 30 trillion in debt. Responsible government is a ship that sailed decades ago.

mmm, by that I mean making well considered policy choices, not merely campaign slogans. That includes the relative usage of debt capacity or not. Debt in and of itself is not irresponsible, as long as the underlying assets are growing in the long term faster than the relative amount of debt.

Of course, that doesn't mean that some spending relative to taxation isn't irresponsible. It can be.

Being a fiscal conservative means to have a bias to being careful to not excessively spend more than the rate of growth in underlying assets, except in extreme situations, and to generally spend less than the rate of such growth when times are good. Conserve dry powder for those extreme times. They will happen.

So the fact inflation is creeping ever forward makes all that spending even more irresponsible? What will it cost just to pay interest on our debt at 30 trillion if inflation increases 1%? I'm guessing you already know the answer. All the responsible government talk means nothing unless the government stops spending

I think you mean, if interest rates grow 1%?...inflation reduces the value of the debt, not increases it. But inflation draws monetary response, so interest rates...

But sure, it's darn costly to service debt. One would rather have less. But we have wars, and pandemics, and recessions...and we should build bridges! Indeed whatever undergirds the success of our system.

But the way to think about all this (at least as a fiscal conservative) is whether the spending we do contributes to the social and physical underpinning of an economy, and the underlying "asset value", of that economy faster than its cost, over an extended period of time? And then, sharpening the pencil further, are these the best spending priorities to accomplish that objective?

We spend on many different things, both domestically and internationally, so as to have a functioning civil society and world that supports the ongoing increase in standard of living. Are these the best, most effective ways to spend resources?

Responsible governing weighs thoughtfully among various choices...it's not a red meat campaign slogan.

[cradleandshoot]

I see campaign slogans but no actual plan.

That may be a way to win elections, but certainly isn't responsible government...of course, the latter may well not be the objective for some.

" responsible government" now there is an oxymoron for you. Sort of like jumbo shrimp...
We are 30 trillion in debt. Responsible government is a ship that sailed decades ago.

mmm, by that I mean making well considered policy choices, not merely campaign slogans. That includes the relative usage of debt capacity or not. Debt in and of itself is not irresponsible, as long as the underlying assets are growing in the long term faster than the relative amount of debt.

Of course, that doesn't mean that some spending relative to taxation isn't irresponsible. It can be.

Being a fiscal conservative means to have a bias to being careful to not excessively spend more than the rate of growth in underlying assets, except in extreme situations, and to generally spend less than the rate of such growth when times are good. Conserve dry powder for those extreme times. They will happen.

So the fact inflation is creeping ever forward makes all that spending even more irresponsible? What will it cost just to pay interest on our debt at 30 trillion if inflation increases 1%? I'm guessing you already know the answer. All the responsible government talk means nothing unless the government stops spending

I think you mean, if interest rates grow 1%?...inflation reduces the value of the debt, not increases it. But inflation draws monetary response, so interest rates...

But sure, it's darn costly to service debt. One would rather have less. But we have wars, and pandemics, and recessions...and we should build bridges! Indeed whatever undergirds the success of our system.

But the way to think about all this (at least as a fiscal conservative) is whether the spending we do contributes to the social and physical underpinning of an economy, and the underlying "asset value", of that economy faster than its cost, over an extended period of time? And then, sharpening the pencil further, are these the best spending priorities to accomplish that objective?

We spend on many different things, both domestically and internationally, so as to have a functioning civil society and world that supports the ongoing increase in standard of living. Are these the best, most effective ways to spend resources?

Responsible governing weighs thoughtfully among various choices...it's not a red meat campaign slogan.

No matter how much the government spends or what they spend it on their is only one source of revenue, the US taxpayer. That income while substantial, does not represent a bottomless pit of money. The US government itself does not create one red cent of income not paid for by tax dollars.

[MDlaxfan76]

I see campaign slogans but no actual plan.

That may be a way to win elections, but certainly isn't responsible government...of course, the latter may well not be the objective for some.

" responsible government" now there is an oxymoron for you. Sort of like jumbo shrimp...
We are 30 trillion in debt. Responsible government is a ship that sailed decades ago.

mmm, by that I mean making well considered policy choices, not merely campaign slogans. That includes the relative usage of debt capacity or not. Debt in and of itself is not irresponsible, as long as the underlying assets are growing in the long term faster than the relative amount of debt.

Of course, that doesn't mean that some spending relative to taxation isn't irresponsible. It can be.

Being a fiscal conservative means to have a bias to being careful to not excessively spend more than the rate of growth in underlying assets, except in extreme situations, and to generally spend less than the rate of such growth when times are good. Conserve dry powder for those extreme times. They will happen.

So the fact inflation is creeping ever forward makes all that spending even more irresponsible? What will it cost just to pay interest on our debt at 30 trillion if inflation increases 1%? I'm guessing you already know the answer. All the responsible government talk means nothing unless the government stops spending

I think you mean, if interest rates grow 1%?...inflation reduces the value of the debt, not increases it. But inflation draws monetary response, so interest rates...

But sure, it's darn costly to service debt. One would rather have less. But we have wars, and pandemics, and recessions...and we should build bridges! Indeed whatever undergirds the success of our system.

But the way to think about all this (at least as a fiscal conservative) is whether the spending we do contributes to the social and physical underpinning of an economy, and the underlying "asset value", of that economy faster than its cost, over an extended period of time? And then, sharpening the pencil further, are these the best spending priorities to accomplish that objective?

We spend on many different things, both domestically and internationally, so as to have a functioning civil society and world that supports the ongoing increase in standard of living. Are these the best, most effective ways to spend resources?

Responsible governing weighs thoughtfully among various choices...it's not a red meat campaign slogan.

No matter how much the government spends or what they spend it on their is only one source of revenue, the US taxpayer. That income while substantial, does not represent a bottomless pit of money. The US government itself does not create one red cent of income not paid for by tax dollars.

Well, not precisely true, but so overwhelmingly close that its not a nit worth picking.

Of course the "American taxpayer" is who pays taxes in America...by definition...people and corporations...

And their capacity to do so is based upon the economic vitality of the system, which is the "American system", paid for by their predecessor taxpayers...

If people and corporations aren't making money, aren't transacting business, taxes can theoretically shrink to near nuth'in. Debt balloons...or spending on anything ends...

Fortunately, however, many generations of taxpayers and workers and businesses have invested in their future and in the economic and rule of law based system which is inarguably the strongest in the world...

We need to continue to invest in that system for future generations...but doing so wisely, please.

[RedFromMI]

The plan that would sunset Social Security and Medicare!

The perfect plan to essentially eliminate most government functions - a John Birch Society fever dream.

(Forces ALL federal programs to sunset every five years.) And with a filibuster, you have the prescription to break the federal government down to nothing in no time.

So much nonsense in that plan that Mitch McConnell won't touch it with a ten foot pole.

We *like* Mitch now?

Mitch is far more a DC establishment guy than Rick, and above all, Mitch doesn’t think putting out plans in advance of the shellacking Democrats are about to get is smart politics. I disagree with him.

In any event, a fan said no Republicans had plans. I showed him one.

It is not a matter of liking him - I don't care for his politics of both obstructionism and the bending of logic to avoid votes (like Garland) while rushing ACB through. If he thinks it is a bad idea, how do you possibly sell it? The D attack lines write themselves, and when the voters see that social security is in real danger it will put a real damper on R candidates.

So just run on an obviously not ready for prime time plan...and hope no one notices.

For crying out loud, there have been voices screaming for years that SS was in deep doo financially. For all those years the voices from the other side said nonsense. So now all of a sudden comes the acknowledgement that SS really has been in " deep doo doo" can you imagine that? Some one finally did the math...

And there is a simple fix for most of the problem of SS - increase the cap on income subject to the payroll tax from its current value. No political motivation to do that yet - SS fixes tend to wait until the last minute before being enacted...

[Farfromgeneva]

I see campaign slogans but no actual plan.

That may be a way to win elections, but certainly isn't responsible government...of course, the latter may well not be the objective for some.

" responsible government" now there is an oxymoron for you. Sort of like jumbo shrimp...
We are 30 trillion in debt. Responsible government is a ship that sailed decades ago.

mmm, by that I mean making well considered policy choices, not merely campaign slogans. That includes the relative usage of debt capacity or not. Debt in and of itself is not irresponsible, as long as the underlying assets are growing in the long term faster than the relative amount of debt.

Of course, that doesn't mean that some spending relative to taxation isn't irresponsible. It can be.

Being a fiscal conservative means to have a bias to being careful to not excessively spend more than the rate of growth in underlying assets, except in extreme situations, and to generally spend less than the rate of such growth when times are good. Conserve dry powder for those extreme times. They will happen.

The underlying asset of a country is its people who can convert their sweat equity to future cash flows. Greying and skill decaying demographics combined with increasing xenophobia and restrictions on immigration make deleveraging the right bet. The cost of money doesn’t matter when the assets are due for a “writedown”-that’s been an inferior argument of politicians the last few years (“look how cheap money is, we should borrow more!”).

Otherwise our country becomes below investment grade private equity fodder to milk for years to come.

[RedFromMI]

I see campaign slogans but no actual plan.

That may be a way to win elections, but certainly isn't responsible government...of course, the latter may well not be the objective for some.

" responsible government" now there is an oxymoron for you. Sort of like jumbo shrimp...
We are 30 trillion in debt. Responsible government is a ship that sailed decades ago.

mmm, by that I mean making well considered policy choices, not merely campaign slogans. That includes the relative usage of debt capacity or not. Debt in and of itself is not irresponsible, as long as the underlying assets are growing in the long term faster than the relative amount of debt.

Of course, that doesn't mean that some spending relative to taxation isn't irresponsible. It can be.

Being a fiscal conservative means to have a bias to being careful to not excessively spend more than the rate of growth in underlying assets, except in extreme situations, and to generally spend less than the rate of such growth when times are good. Conserve dry powder for those extreme times. They will happen.

The underlying asset of a country is its people who can convert their sweat equity to future cash flows. Greying and skill decaying demographics combined with increasing xenophobia and restrictions on immigration make deleveraging the right bet. The cost of money doesn’t matter when the assets are due for a “writedown”-that’s been an inferior argument of politicians the last few years (“look how cheap money is, we should borrow more!”).

Otherwise our country becomes below investment grade private equity fodder to milk for years to come.

That is why we need to reverse the Trumpian course and increase legal immigration. There are plenty of good analyses of immigration waves being net positives and not negatives on the economy.

You not only get more workers and entrepreneurs, but you get more consumers and taxpayers as well...

[Farfromgeneva]

I see campaign slogans but no actual plan.

That may be a way to win elections, but certainly isn't responsible government...of course, the latter may well not be the objective for some.

" responsible government" now there is an oxymoron for you. Sort of like jumbo shrimp...
We are 30 trillion in debt. Responsible government is a ship that sailed decades ago.

mmm, by that I mean making well considered policy choices, not merely campaign slogans. That includes the relative usage of debt capacity or not. Debt in and of itself is not irresponsible, as long as the underlying assets are growing in the long term faster than the relative amount of debt.

Of course, that doesn't mean that some spending relative to taxation isn't irresponsible. It can be.

Being a fiscal conservative means to have a bias to being careful to not excessively spend more than the rate of growth in underlying assets, except in extreme situations, and to generally spend less than the rate of such growth when times are good. Conserve dry powder for those extreme times. They will happen.

The underlying asset of a country is its people who can convert their sweat equity to future cash flows. Greying and skill decaying demographics combined with increasing xenophobia and restrictions on immigration make deleveraging the right bet. The cost of money doesn’t matter when the assets are due for a “writedown”-that’s been an inferior argument of politicians the last few years (“look how cheap money is, we should borrow more!”).

Otherwise our country becomes below investment grade private equity fodder to milk for years to come.

That is why we need to reverse the Trumpian course and increase legal immigration. There are plenty of good analyses of immigration waves being net positives and not negatives on the economy.

You not only get more workers and entrepreneurs, but you get more consumers and taxpayers as well...

Agreed. Really twenty years of anti-immigration positioning really, including Obama and Bush, if one looks at the number and type of visas made available over time.

[MDlaxfan76]

I see campaign slogans but no actual plan.

That may be a way to win elections, but certainly isn't responsible government...of course, the latter may well not be the objective for some.

" responsible government" now there is an oxymoron for you. Sort of like jumbo shrimp...
We are 30 trillion in debt. Responsible government is a ship that sailed decades ago.

mmm, by that I mean making well considered policy choices, not merely campaign slogans. That includes the relative usage of debt capacity or not. Debt in and of itself is not irresponsible, as long as the underlying assets are growing in the long term faster than the relative amount of debt.

Of course, that doesn't mean that some spending relative to taxation isn't irresponsible. It can be.

Being a fiscal conservative means to have a bias to being careful to not excessively spend more than the rate of growth in underlying assets, except in extreme situations, and to generally spend less than the rate of such growth when times are good. Conserve dry powder for those extreme times. They will happen.

The underlying asset of a country is its people who can convert their sweat equity to future cash flows. Greying and skill decaying demographics combined with increasing xenophobia and restrictions on immigration make deleveraging the right bet. The cost of money doesn’t matter when the assets are due for a “writedown”-that’s been an inferior argument of politicians the last few years (“look how cheap money is, we should borrow more!”).

Otherwise our country becomes below investment grade private equity fodder to milk for years to come.

Or...we can look at immigration quite differently, as well as the productive capacities of the people we have...

But yes, if the underlying assets (people) are depreciating faster than can be kept up, the country goes into a death spiral.

[MDlaxfan76]

I see campaign slogans but no actual plan.

That may be a way to win elections, but certainly isn't responsible government...of course, the latter may well not be the objective for some.

" responsible government" now there is an oxymoron for you. Sort of like jumbo shrimp...
We are 30 trillion in debt. Responsible government is a ship that sailed decades ago.

mmm, by that I mean making well considered policy choices, not merely campaign slogans. That includes the relative usage of debt capacity or not. Debt in and of itself is not irresponsible, as long as the underlying assets are growing in the long term faster than the relative amount of debt.

Of course, that doesn't mean that some spending relative to taxation isn't irresponsible. It can be.

Being a fiscal conservative means to have a bias to being careful to not excessively spend more than the rate of growth in underlying assets, except in extreme situations, and to generally spend less than the rate of such growth when times are good. Conserve dry powder for those extreme times. They will happen.

The underlying asset of a country is its people who can convert their sweat equity to future cash flows. Greying and skill decaying demographics combined with increasing xenophobia and restrictions on immigration make deleveraging the right bet. The cost of money doesn’t matter when the assets are due for a “writedown”-that’s been an inferior argument of politicians the last few years (“look how cheap money is, we should borrow more!”).

Otherwise our country becomes below investment grade private equity fodder to milk for years to come.

That is why we need to reverse the Trumpian course and increase legal immigration. There are plenty of good analyses of immigration waves being net positives and not negatives on the economy.

You not only get more workers and entrepreneurs, but you get more consumers and taxpayers as well...

Agreed. Really twenty years of anti-immigration positioning really, including Obama and Bush, if one looks at the number and type of visas made available over time.

+1 to you both, as well as the comment about fixing SS.

We also went too far in our eagerness to reduce taxes on wealthier folks, especially on the super wealthy and corporations.

[Kinduv]

stupid

[cradleandshoot]

I see campaign slogans but no actual plan.

That may be a way to win elections, but certainly isn't responsible government...of course, the latter may well not be the objective for some.

" responsible government" now there is an oxymoron for you. Sort of like jumbo shrimp...
We are 30 trillion in debt. Responsible government is a ship that sailed decades ago.

mmm, by that I mean making well considered policy choices, not merely campaign slogans. That includes the relative usage of debt capacity or not. Debt in and of itself is not irresponsible, as long as the underlying assets are growing in the long term faster than the relative amount of debt.

Of course, that doesn't mean that some spending relative to taxation isn't irresponsible. It can be.

Being a fiscal conservative means to have a bias to being careful to not excessively spend more than the rate of growth in underlying assets, except in extreme situations, and to generally spend less than the rate of such growth when times are good. Conserve dry powder for those extreme times. They will happen.

So the fact inflation is creeping ever forward makes all that spending even more irresponsible? What will it cost just to pay interest on our debt at 30 trillion if inflation increases 1%? I'm guessing you already know the answer. All the responsible government talk means nothing unless the government stops spending

I think you mean, if interest rates grow 1%?...inflation reduces the value of the debt, not increases it. But inflation draws monetary response, so interest rates...

But sure, it's darn costly to service debt. One would rather have less. But we have wars, and pandemics, and recessions...and we should build bridges! Indeed whatever undergirds the success of our system.

But the way to think about all this (at least as a fiscal conservative) is whether the spending we do contributes to the social and physical underpinning of an economy, and the underlying "asset value", of that economy faster than its cost, over an extended period of time? And then, sharpening the pencil further, are these the best spending priorities to accomplish that objective?

We spend on many different things, both domestically and internationally, so as to have a functioning civil society and world that supports the ongoing increase in standard of living. Are these the best, most effective ways to spend resources?

Responsible governing weighs thoughtfully among various choices...it's not a red meat campaign slogan.

No matter how much the government spends or what they spend it on their is only one source of revenue, the US taxpayer. That income while substantial, does not represent a bottomless pit of money. The US government itself does not create one red cent of income not paid for by tax dollars.

Well, not precisely true, but so overwhelmingly close that its not a nit worth picking.

Of course the "American taxpayer" is who pays taxes in America...by definition...people and corporations...

And their capacity to do so is based upon the economic vitality of the system, which is the "American system", paid for by their predecessor taxpayers...

If people and corporations aren't making money, aren't transacting business, taxes can theoretically shrink to near nuth'in. Debt balloons...or spending on anything ends...

Fortunately, however, many generations of taxpayers and workers and businesses have invested in their future and in the economic and rule of law based system which is inarguably the strongest in the world...

We need to continue to invest in that system for future generations...but doing so wisely, please.

Thank you for clearing up my confusion about inflation. My point is there will always be a finite amount of money the government can raise in taxes from individuals and corporations. The government can't borrow and spend forever. It does seem like they are willing to try though. I call it trolling for dollars. My wife and I just received a letter from the IRS yesterday saying we owed 3400 dollars from capital gains on our retirement accounts. Our bank guy doesn't know what this is about and our tax guy doesn't know. He did a quick look at our 2020 returns and said there is nothing wrong. So guess who has the responsibility now of trying to figure out what the IRS wants? our tax guy now has to call the IRS on our dime with the meter running to try and figure this out. The IRS was kind enough to give us to April 18 to pony up the money before they start charging interest and penalty. It may take until April 18 to talk to someone at the IRS. You could say that is one way to raise money for the government...

[MDlaxfan76]

I see campaign slogans but no actual plan.

That may be a way to win elections, but certainly isn't responsible government...of course, the latter may well not be the objective for some.

" responsible government" now there is an oxymoron for you. Sort of like jumbo shrimp...
We are 30 trillion in debt. Responsible government is a ship that sailed decades ago.

mmm, by that I mean making well considered policy choices, not merely campaign slogans. That includes the relative usage of debt capacity or not. Debt in and of itself is not irresponsible, as long as the underlying assets are growing in the long term faster than the relative amount of debt.

Of course, that doesn't mean that some spending relative to taxation isn't irresponsible. It can be.

Being a fiscal conservative means to have a bias to being careful to not excessively spend more than the rate of growth in underlying assets, except in extreme situations, and to generally spend less than the rate of such growth when times are good. Conserve dry powder for those extreme times. They will happen.

So the fact inflation is creeping ever forward makes all that spending even more irresponsible? What will it cost just to pay interest on our debt at 30 trillion if inflation increases 1%? I'm guessing you already know the answer. All the responsible government talk means nothing unless the government stops spending

I think you mean, if interest rates grow 1%?...inflation reduces the value of the debt, not increases it. But inflation draws monetary response, so interest rates...

But sure, it's darn costly to service debt. One would rather have less. But we have wars, and pandemics, and recessions...and we should build bridges! Indeed whatever undergirds the success of our system.

But the way to think about all this (at least as a fiscal conservative) is whether the spending we do contributes to the social and physical underpinning of an economy, and the underlying "asset value", of that economy faster than its cost, over an extended period of time? And then, sharpening the pencil further, are these the best spending priorities to accomplish that objective?

We spend on many different things, both domestically and internationally, so as to have a functioning civil society and world that supports the ongoing increase in standard of living. Are these the best, most effective ways to spend resources?

Responsible governing weighs thoughtfully among various choices...it's not a red meat campaign slogan.

No matter how much the government spends or what they spend it on their is only one source of revenue, the US taxpayer. That income while substantial, does not represent a bottomless pit of money. The US government itself does not create one red cent of income not paid for by tax dollars.

Well, not precisely true, but so overwhelmingly close that its not a nit worth picking.

Of course the "American taxpayer" is who pays taxes in America...by definition...people and corporations...

And their capacity to do so is based upon the economic vitality of the system, which is the "American system", paid for by their predecessor taxpayers...

If people and corporations aren't making money, aren't transacting business, taxes can theoretically shrink to near nuth'in. Debt balloons...or spending on anything ends...

Fortunately, however, many generations of taxpayers and workers and businesses have invested in their future and in the economic and rule of law based system which is inarguably the strongest in the world...

We need to continue to invest in that system for future generations...but doing so wisely, please.

Thank you for clearing up my confusion about inflation. My point is there will always be a finite amount of money the government can raise in taxes from individuals and corporations. The government can't borrow and spend forever. It does seem like they are willing to try though. I call it trolling for dollars. My wife and I just received a letter from the IRS yesterday saying we owed 3400 dollars from capital gains on our retirement accounts. Our bank guy doesn't know what this is about and our tax guy doesn't know. He did a quick look at our 2020 returns and said there is nothing wrong. So guess who has the responsibility now of trying to figure out what the IRS wants? our tax guy now has to call the IRS on our dime with the meter running to try and figure this out. The IRS was kind enough to give us to April 18 to pony up the money before they start charging interest and penalty. It may take until April 18 to talk to someone at the IRS. You could say that is one way to raise money for the government...

Well, here's hoping your "tax guy" knows what he's doing and you don't end up with both cap gains bill AND a tax guy bill...

The IRS does make mistakes, but I'd be willing to bet a nickel that there were some underreported stock trades that the IRS picked up on through other means. Hope they simply made a mistake!